[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> QED Display Ltd v Herod [1996] UKEAT 520_96_1211 (12 November 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/520_96_1211.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 520_96_1211

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR M WEST (Consultant) Peninsula Business Services Ltd Stamford House 361-365 Chapel Street Manchester M3 5JY


 


JUDGE PUGSLEY: This is a case that comes before us pursuant to the Practice Direction to determine whether there is an argument as to law which justifies that this case proceed to a full hearing. We have had the benefit of hearing the Appellant's representative, Mr West, who is a person of some very considerable experience and he has said everything possible that could be said to justify the grounds of appeal. But experience and expertise cannot make bricks without straw.

We have carefully read the decision of the Tribunal and we have been referred to the case of Masters of Beckenham Ltd v Green [1977] ICR 535. We accept that we have power to review the exercise of discretion vested in Industrial Tribunals as to whether to grant an adjournment. We consider that the Industrial Tribunal applied the correct test. Indeed, despite the advocacy of Mr West, we are all of the view that the way in which this Tribunal weighed the issues as set forward in the Extended Reasons at paragraph 1(a), could serve as a template for diligence and care. It is true that the final sentence weighing up all these factors, "we decided that it was not in the interests of justice to allow the Respondents to enter a late Notice of Appearance", does not go on to say "in weighing up all these factors and in the interests of justice we consider of course the fact that if the Respondent is not allowed to enter a late Notice of Appearance, it has draconian consequences for them." But it is clearly, in our view, implicit, in the decision of the Members of the Tribunal.

We are bound to say that this is not a case in which the Appellant is a small employer. It is a company with a substantial turnover. In our view, nothing has been put before us which justifies the matter proceeding to a full hearing.